Judgment

SARKAR, J. : This appeal raises the question whether the suit filed by the appellants was properly dismissed on the ground that a civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The Courts below held that a civil court s jurisdiction to entertain the suit was barred by S. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

2. The appellants had filed the suit for a declaration that they were citizens of India and for an injunction restraining the defendants from removing them from India. The defendants were the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Jhabua, in Madhya Pradesh. The appellants stated in the plaint that they were citizens of India and had not ceased to be such citizens. They said that in the beginning of 1953 they went to Pakistan for a temporary visit without a passport but when they wanted to return they were compelled to obtain Parkistani passports. They stated that they obtained these passports only as a device for securing their return to India and had really been compelled to obtain the passports against their will. They further stated that, therefore, they could not be said to have acquired citizenship of Pakistan. They also stated that they had made all efforts for the cancellation of the passports and to obtain permission to stay in India permanently but were unsuccessful. They said that the State of Madhya Pradesh served on them an order dated November 11, 1955, under S. 3 (2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, asking them to leave the country. They contend that this order was illegal and without justification as they were not foreigners.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants it was stated that the appellants had left India between March and May, 1948, and they returned for the first time on a temporary Pakistani passport sometime in the early part of1955: It was also stated that the permits granted to them to remain in India were extended from time to time and ultimately up to about October,1955, and thereafter they were served with orders to quit India. The defendants further stated that the appellants were not citizens of India as they had voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship by obtaining passports from that country.

4. The suit was dismissed as it was held not to be maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 of the Citizenship Act. That sub-section is in these terms:

Section 9 (2). "If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf."

Rule 30 of the Rules framed under this Act provides that such a question shall be determined by the Central Government, who for that purpose shall have regard to the rules of evidence specified in schedule III to the Rules.

5. It seems to us clear that sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 of the Citizenship Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the question there mentioned because it says that those questions shall be determined by the prescribed authority which necessarily implies that it cannot be decided by anyone else. The only question, however, which a civil court is prevented by S. 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act from determining is the question whether a citizen of India has acquired citizenship of another country or when or bow he acquired it. The civil courts are not prevented by this provision from determining other questions concerning nationality of a person. There is no doubt that the suit by the appellants raised the question whether they had lost their Indian citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of Pakistan. The appellants themselves had raised that question by pleading in their plaint that they had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. To that extent it has to be held that the appellants suit was barred. It seems to us however that the suit raised other questions also. The appellants claim t